Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Dec 14, 2003 3:08am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements

imagine if you wanted to share Picasso paintings with the world on the internet, but all you can do is offer grainy thumbnails.

Sigh, how many more times to beat the point in- the lossless versions here are *not* going away.

FYI Brewster's proposal:
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=10746

FWIW, would you like to share what item had a no-archive stamp on it? At least, what artist the taper taped? I'm just curious about the social dynamics of it all. Thanks!

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2003-12-14 11:08:55

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Ethan P. Date: Dec 14, 2003 4:32am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements

scwhilly on the 'groove is putting that on his stuff, flogging molly is one of the ones i saw he had taped (which is where the info is from)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Dec 16, 2003 10:27am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket statement- flogging molly

12/15: Thanks for the heads up, the gentleman may not have even heard about the opt-out idea on specific tapes yet. I gather fewer people read the recent proposal than the earlier unfortunate flamewar.

Meanwhile that band is not even OK'd for the LMA yet anyway.

12/16 Update: This one has been happily resolved by personal communication, in light of current ideas. Meanwhile FM is still pending anyway- but Schwilly's taping helped me pitch to 'em. :) Cross fingers on that...

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2003-12-16 18:27:35

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: thoman8r Date: Dec 14, 2003 10:56pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements

Thanks for the heads up, the gentleman may not have even heard about the opt-out idea on specific tapes yet. I gather fewer people read the recent proposal than the earlier unfortunate flamewar.

I think a lot fewer. The way this was originally handled left a lot to be desired (not talking about you Diana), and I'm afraid may have permanently scared off some tapers no matter what the outcome is.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Dec 14, 2003 11:36pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Educate re current LMA proposal

You're right, there's probably a mixture of guys who would be negative no matter what vs. a group just wanting to "protect" their own tapes- the latter case now accomodated by current LMA idea.

For people in the second group not getting the message yet, I'd recommend anyone trader seeing a no-archive note in an info file give a nice heads up to the taper about the current thinking:

http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=10746

No reason to have a misunderstanding from an old flamewar be perpetuated. Sound good?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: zachs Date: Dec 14, 2003 10:48pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements....flogging on

Yeah, I'm sorry but I didn't get a good whack at the horse so I'm flogging on. Again, I joined the discussion about possibly offering up mp3s on LMA after finding this in a .txt file.

"Please do not encode this to MP3, or upload it to archive.org!
Don't use lossy formats! Stick to shn, ape, flac, or wav...
If you still feel the need to trade mp3's then
drink a beer and deal with it
or see a doctor and get rid of it!

Bob Wiely - [email snip- mod]
Sound Tribe Sector 9 Archive."

I was encouraged to post something because my intention once I got the show, was to upload it. To shed some light on why the prospect of this source being encoded to mp3 is so offensive to the taper, look at the source:

Source:
(Both on the same stand and just LoC)
Schoeps CMXY4v (x/y cards @75o) > V2 > VX Pocket V2 > Dell 7500 using wavelab 4.0g @ 24/48
(then I changed the bit depth to 16 for the mix)

And

Nak 100 / cp4 (shot guns aimed at the inside corners of the stacks)> Sonosax SX-M2 > Mod SBM-1 > D100 @ 16/48

They were then mixed using Vegas 4.0, resampled/fades added in Soundforge 6.0, tracked using cdwav, and shn'd using mkw

Transfer:
They were then mixed using Vegas 4.0, resampled/fades added in Soundforge 6.0, tracked using cdwav, and shn'd using mkw

He's spent lots of time and used lots of gear to produce a recording that smokes. Wouldn't you want that to come across to the people who hear it. Its certainly lost if you hear it as an mp3. I have the same dilema. I'm sitting here tranferring a show by a different artist that I'd like to post to LMA. I'm putting the finishing touches on it now to make sure that it sounds just right. If some percentage of the people that hear it, will get an mp3, what's the point. I could have just as well run through the crowd with a Mr. Microphone.
I understand that lossless formats would still be available, but honestly, I'd rather those few incremental downloaders that you get by offering mp3s, not get them. I'd rather that you offer them a streaming sample that they can't download which would encourage them to seek a lossless source via trading. I trade in a community of people where many don't have high speed. The ones that do have high speed download and offer it up as a b&p to the ones that don't. Why not encourage that. Its the glory of standing in front of the Picasso painting that we hope to share when we record live audio. A grainy thumbnail of a Picasso doesn't convey that. I have no greater joy in recording something than when someone sends me some mail saying that it sounded great! And, I love to share that. Its like telling a photographer that all of their photographs will be available as low resolution .jpeg downloads, just because they're easier to download.
Take a poll...email your uploaders and see who'd mind their uploads getting encoded. Wouldn't that be better than seeing how many you piss off with a trial period vs. how many incremental mp3 downloaders you get. After all if you loose the source material it doesn't really matter how many incremental downloads you would have had, right. Chickens fly the koop and doesn't matter what you would have liked to do with the eggs.

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2003-12-15 06:48:32

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Dec 14, 2003 10:47pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Time to stop flogging on

Moderator note: A patron replied to this post with 2 long posts containing some stuff beginning to be inflammatory. It's been fairly cool to this point, and it's pretty much time to move on now, not to keep flogging on. So I've taken the extreme judgment of deleting the 2 posts which could be considered baiting.

Everything's useful's been pretty much said. If you have specific, substantive comments relating directly to Brewster's proposal, please follow up directly to his post.
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=10746

OK folks?

Now re STS9 Archivist (note not a random taper for the band) thing, no futher comment need be made. Email has been sent for resolution, there are a couple of options in line with Brewster's proposal. I'd appreciate not complicating the situation further. Darnit.

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2003-12-15 06:47:52

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Erich Date: Dec 14, 2003 11:36pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Time to stop flogging on

*sigh*

They took me a long time to think out and post, and none of it was intended as bait, with the exception of my thoughts on the disclaimer. That could be construed as inflammory if you wish, but the rest was not intended as so.

Maybe there should be a feature that would allow for the locking of a thread, so no new comments can be added regardless.

Accepted, but I dissagree.

This post was modified by Erich on 2003-12-15 07:36:47